While not the 1st artist to take on the conceptions of light and its practical uses in art, now Flagstff, AZ. artist James Turrell has brought the perception of light in art to creative and fantastic new levels through his conceptions such as his famous "skyspaces" to "darkspaces," "blue rooms," etc. Many of his pieces offer low light level environments, some almost no light at all, still others brilliant hues of red and blue.

Like most artists, Turrell shies away from giving detailed explinations of his works so that each individual can surmise the piece for themselves. This is not necessarly the case in this work. Turrell wanted, (and did) to build a specific "skyscape" in order to view an eclipse that occurred in England. Like his other "skyscapes," Turrell took the environment and all of its factors, as well as very specific geometry, into account, so that he could construct the perfect medium through which to not just observe the eclipse, but to better magnify the light, or lack thereof, of the eclipse.

The book is a wonderful look at this process, complete with analysis and pictures of the eclipse, the "skyscape," etc. An added bonus is the cd by German composer Paul Schulze, who's approach to his music (a minimalist ambient style, normally) is a perfect match to Turrell's art.

Fans of Turrell, or those who are interested in the interplay between light, our senses, and the reality they both help us create, will find this rather short treatsie to be of invaluable use to them. A wonderfully intriguing work.

James Turrell has long been a major player in the field of light art, and visitors to the Matress Factory museum in Pittsburgh are well aware of his outstanding way of playing with art and images. This amusing meditation on an eclipse is an excellent addition to his body of work

Communicology is the study of human discourse in all of its forms, ranging from human gesture and speech to art and television. communicology also represents the dominant qualitative research paradigm in the discipline of human commuication, especially in the applied areas of mass communication, philosophy of communication, and speech commuication. Lanigan's work exemplifies the theory of communicology by offering the bold and original thesis that Michel Foucault's thematic study of the Discourse of Desire and Power is an elaboration of the problematic discourse explicated in Maurice Merleau-Ponty's interrogation of Freedom and Terror. Various chapters cover such topics as art versus science, culture and communication, modernity versus postmodernity, feminism versus humanism, research methodology, and the Capta versus Data distinction for research validity. Actual examples of research cover the aesthetics of painting and sculpture, radio and television, rhetorical criticism of oral and written texts, and the East-West perspective on crosscultural encounter--all using the approach of semiotic phenomenology. Two special features of this book make it a worthy purchase for the teacher and scholar alike. First, Lanigan provides an Encyclopedic Dictionary that illustrates and defines the the theory and method of the Human Sciences in general and the discipline of Communicology in particular. Used for several years by teachers in a number of universities, this dictionary has become a "classic" among students before its first-time publication here. Second, Lanigan analyzes and illustrates what has been missing for years in the study of Foucault's work: a definition (with appropriate illustrative figures and tables) of Foucault's method of Archaeology and Genealogy (Criticism) for research in the human sciences, especially in the study of human discourse.

Renaud Barbaras is undoubtedly one of the most interesting philosophers working currently in the field of phenomenology. "Le tournant de l'experience" is a collection of articles - some of which have been previously published in various journals - on Merleau-Ponty but this does not mean to say that Barbaras is not an original philosopher. Throughout the book, he develops his own phenomenological project whose aim is to synthetise the philosophy of Husserl, late Merleau-Ponty and Bergson. The most important topic Barbaras is concerned with is the problem of perception - apart from the phenomenological view od perceptive acts, he is influenced by Bergson's "Matiere et Memoire" (especially by the first chapter). According to the author's own conception, the perceptive act may be understood, roughly speaking, as a continuous saturation (which is, however, never achieved) of an ontological distance between the perceiving subject and the perceived being. The subject is, therefore, understood as a form of movement conditioned by what Barbaras calls ontological desire. The book may be strongly recommended to anyone interested in phenomenology and in the problem of perception.

This is one of those projects that should almost never be attempted - one thinks of the sequel for Gone with the Wind for a crass example, and yet Doug Low will surprise you. Not speculation or conjecture, but a thoughtful, well developed thesis based on a wide body of relevant writings, research and analysis. If Merleau-Ponty is in your pantheon of great 20th century philosophers, this is essential reading.

This work presents the first systemic account of the author's innovative theory of semiotic phenomenology and its place in the philosophy of communication and language. The creative and compelling project presented here spans more than fiifteen years of systematic eidetic and empirical research into questions of human communication. Using the thematics of Merleau-Ponty's existential phenomenology, the author explores the concepts and practices of the human sciences that are grounded in communication theory, information theory, language, logic, linguisitcs, and semioitcs. The hermeneutic discussion ranges over contemporary theories that include Roman Jakobson's phenomenological structuralism, the semiotics of Umberto Eco, Charles Pierce, and Alfred Schutz, the theory of speech acts offered by Jurgen Habermas and John Searle, and Michel Foucault's phenomenological rhetoric of discourse. In general, this highly developed study offers the reader a fresh account of the problematic issues in the philosophy of communication. It is a work that any scholar in communication, philosophy, linguistice, or social theory would welcome for its scope and sustained research.

(I) Existential Communication as Phenomenology: (1) Existential Communication; (2) The Apparent Antinomy of Existential Communication; (3) Communication as Existentialism; (4) Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy as Existential Communication; (II) Existential Phenomenology as Semiology: (1) The Cartesian Dualism: Semiotic Phenomenalism (Peirce, Morris, Ogden and Richards, Russell); (2) Dualistic Synthesis: Semiotic Existentialism (Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre); (3) Semiotic as Existential Phenomenology (Barthes, Merleau-Ponty); (III) Perception: The Lived Body Experience: (1) The Primacy of Perception (Description); (2) Radical Reflection as Gestalt [Reduction]; (3) Radical Cogito [Interpretation]; (IV) Expression: Existential Phenomenology as Speaking: (1) Expression as Phenomena; (2) Langugae; (3) Tongue [Langue]; (4) Speaking [Parole]; (V) Introduction to the Prose of the World. Definitive Bibliography of Merleau-Ponty's work [Primary Sources] and commentaries [Secondary Sources] on it (in eight langugaes, including English).

Merleau-Ponty's background in psychology is evident in this wonderful yet dense volume. Merleau-Ponty begins a critique of psychology that starts by questioning the assumption of the reflex in psychophysiology, continues, by questioning Pavlovian reflexology, and culminates with a view of behavior as comprised of transummative orders. In reaching this conclusion, Merleau-Ponty recapitulates the Gestalt psychology notion of a whole being greater than its parts. Readers and scholars should find a great deal in Merleau-Ponty that can be related to John Dewey, G.H. Mead, and J.J. Gibson. The scholar willing to undertake the project of tracing the lines of thinking emanating from Gestalt Psychology's turn-of-the-century influence will find Merleau-Ponty a towering figure whose work cannot be ignored.

The Visible and the Invisible is the last work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, left unfinished by his untimely death. (Does anyone really have a timely death?)

In this volume from Northwestern University Press, the unfinished text is appended by the working notes for the volume in an excellent translation by Alphonso Lingis with deft editing and a sterling introduction by Claude Lefort.

Merleau-Ponty, arguably the greatest philosopher of the Twentieth Century (he does not carry the baggage Heidegger does), was moving in this volume to a new determination of the relationship between phenomenology and ontology. Reading the volume and the working notes leads the reader to wonder how successful it would have been had Merleau-Ponty lived to publish it. As it is, it adds up to another of the intangibles taht make Western intellectual history such an enticing puzzle. Recommended for anyone interested in Twentieth Century philosophy.

Well, not narrowly on the philosophy of mind; that'd be an analytic-biased description (and one that leaves out all the things such people may extraneous and annoying in this book).

The field of philosophy of mind in Anglophone philosophy has all but ignored Merleau-Ponty's work, much to its disadvantage. Connectionism and dynamic systems theory as applied to the mental are seen as a "new" development, but the Gestalt psychologists and Merleau-Ponty had very much the same ideas long before. And a bunch of other ones, which to Anglophone ears may sound like they're from that other planet which lies across the Channel, but which deserve to be taken seriously.

Warning: this book is HARD to read, all the more so because of cultural differences between analytic and continental philosophers. It helps to read other work ABOUT Merleau-Ponty. M.C. Dillon's "Merleau-Ponty's Ontology" is the best book I've found in this regard.

As someone with almost equally strong backgrounds in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy I can only applaud M-P's wide-ranging curiosity and knowledge and his refusal to be limited by the artificial boundaries of academic disciplines. His discussion of the phenomenology of perception draws its data and conclusions from many areas--as long as they had something to offer in illuminating and analyzing this important area.

In this regard, I am reminded of the great but insufficiently appreciated philosopher, Samuel Alexander, in his major work, Space, Time, and Deity. Alexander was similarly eclectic, and moved back and forth between deduction, induction, historical argument, and between science and philosophy, without any sense of discontinuity whatever. In other words, he was willing to use whatever worked.

But getting back to M-P, this book stands alone in it's thoroughgoing approach to the phenomenology of perception and in its determination to ground such analysis in the ordinary data of everyday life--much as G.E. Moore attempted to ground his metaphysics in very ordinary, everyday facts. M-P is to be commended for a similar approach and his work is probably the greatest of all of these.

Originally, I read this book as part of a Philosophy of the Body course, in companion with Sartre's magnum opus, Being and Nothingness. Trying to keep the two thinkers separate was quite easy, because of the difference in approach and ideas that they both take. Sartre relies on a dualism and intellectualism not easily understood, resulting in a complex and amorphous work, which is still utterly powerful.

M-P, however, as one review said, remains in the concrete experience of everyday life. Perception, the way the mind interprets the senses, the importance of memory, time, and freedom in the world, are all utterly important in this work. M-P provides a work which attempts to synthesize psychology, physicality, and philosophy resulting in a more holistic and foundational work than many 20th century philosophers.

This book can be read as philosophy or psychology, in fact, any course on perception in a Psychology department should read it. Anyone wishing to discuss the question of Pontius Pilate ("What is truth?") should read this book. It touches on so many themes of intellectual life that it will become perhaps the most influential work of philosophy of the 20th century, vying with Sartre's Being and Nothingness and Heidegger's Being and Time.

Sure, Dillon's book is probably the most popular thing on Merleau-Ponty in English, but is that really justified? Throughout the book, Dillon claims to elucidate Merleau-Ponty's position by contrasting his work with a completely unrecognizeable caricature of Husserl. Not only does Dillon show no real understanding of Husserl, but he also ignores the fact that Merleau-Ponty consistently praises Husserl, from the beginning to the end of his career (see the new Merleau-Ponty, _Husserl at the Limits of Phenomenology_). The postmodernism-bashing is also very tired and shows no real understanding of the positions under discussion.

Simply put, to believe Dillon's presentation of Merleau-Ponty, you'd have to believe he just fell from the sky one day to solve all of our philosophical problems--no relation to his predecessors nor to his successors. Not only is this bad history of philosophy, but it ignores Merleau-Ponty's own far more subtle and penetrating method of reading those who preceded him in the history of philosophy. If it's all such a simple little problem of overcoming the evils of Cartesianism, why is Merleau-Ponty's reading of Descartes (see the 1960-1961 course in _Notes de cours, 1959-1961_) so much more complex and interesting than Dillon's?

Perhaps the biggest advantage of Dillon's book is that it makes everything so neat and tidy, the good guys and the bad guys. Some people need this kind of orderly arrangement in their lives. If that's you, go for it. But if good philosophy is what you want, it's rarely so bipolar.

Pay no heed to the pretentiousness of what one reviewer decried as "bipolar" (good guys vs. bad guys) philosophy, this is the greatest secondary philosophical text I have ever read, and perhaps what really irritated the previous reviewer wasn't Dillon's "no real understanding of Husserl," or the "[tired] postmodernism-bashing [that] shows no real understanding of the positions under discussion", but rather was Dillon's own palatable disdain for such intellectual pretentiousness reverberating throughout his text. Rather than writing in ego-gratifying but incomprehensible prose, Dillon authors a wonderfully open and accessible philosophical text that clearly and cogently explains the complex issues under discussion, a feat that is ultimately more difficult than the all to common obscure and esoteric ramblings of modern philosophy.

Far from being a "bipolar" text, this book offers an intricate examination of the historical progression and ultimate failure of bipolar/reductionist thought in the western tradition, be it mind vs. body dualism, immanence vs. transcendence, or linguistic realism vs. conventionalism. Dillon demonstrates convincingly how polarizing (and ultimately second-order) constructions of reality ultimately betray the underlying ontological reality which they were designed to explain by rendering truth and judgment valuation impossible. He then goes on to explain why he believes that the thought of Merleau-Ponty, grounded on the ontological primacy of the phenomena, avoids this reifying of second-order abstractions that create ontological polarization and collapse reality into exclusive spheres of immanence or transcendence.

Moreover, contrary to what was said in the past review, Merleau-Ponty is never deified in the book as someone who "fell from the sky one day to solve all of our philosophical problems". Dillon has obvious disagreements with aspects of Merleau-Ponty's philosophy (read "The Body In Its Sexual Being" from M-P's Phenomenology of Perception and then Dillon's Beyond Romance for one example) that are not presented in this work due to its nature as a secondary text on Merleau-Ponty's ontology, published at a time when such a topic was rarely discussed. Still, this book never even approaches presenting Merleau-Ponty in such a god-like portrait; rather Dillon simply but methodically presents the case that Merleau-Ponty, unlike Sartre among others, offers a true phenomenological ontology grounded on the primacy of the phenomena that (if considered seriously) presents a real and unavoidable challenge to polarizing/reductionist ontological theories, including those that came to the fore after Merleau-Ponty's death in the "linguistic turn".

As the reviewer from the Moon says: "if good philosophy is what you want, it's rarely so bipolar."

In this excellent book, M.C. Dillon gives us a complete overview of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's ontology. He concisely and clearly explains the fundamental thesis with which Merleau-Ponty sought to overcome the subject/object dichotomty that plagues Western thought, especially the thesis of "the primacy of perception", by which MP attempted to ground the knower and the known in a pre-reflective unity of being that would allow for real knowledge without simplifying the activities of the intellect into some naive notion about "mirroring" reality.

A few criticisms could be offered, largely due to Dillon's tendency to read the entire history of Western thought in terms derived from Cartesian epistemology. The subject/object spilt has been around since the days of Plato, to be sure, but it was not the problem for the ancients that it is for us because they did not make it the basis of their fundamental ontological categories, which is what Descartes did when he made the "res cogitans" and the "res extensa" the basic modes of being. Also, a terminological point could be raised about whether or not "perception" is the right term to be using for an ontology. But these are minor points, small flaws in a great work of scholarship. I unequivocally recommend this book to anyone interested in MP.

As a final note, I would like to point out that Dillon makes some trenchant criticisms of Postmodernism and Deconstruction that anyone with an interest in the survival of reason in this era of fashionable irrationalism should find profit in studying. Consider them a "bonus" on top of Dillon's superb explication of MP's ontology.